| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Is There Where we Want to Be?
Most adults asks themselves about mid-life whether who they are is who they really want to be. The US is having a midlife crisis. After a few hundred years, we've had a bumpy road filled with successes and failures, war and peace, prosperity and gloom.
Source: Robert Lindauer, 2003-10-18
Candidate: Robert Lindauer
Today our crisis is over one question: Do we want to be a Tyrannical World Power or do we want to be a Peace-Loving nation of prosperous people?
With day-after-day car-bombings, retaliations, set-backs, cost-incursions and most importantly, deaths, Iraq has become a quagmire.
I'm sorry if you don't like to hear that word, but that's just what it means. Look it up. We are in a military mess with no clear sign of exit or success. It's not surprising, there was no clearly stated goal before the invasion either. If you don't aim, whatever you hit will be a success.
It's an imperial conquest, to boot. That's right. No one, not even the Official line of the Administration says that it's anything less than an Occupation. That's right, we've occupied a country, annexed it.
And it was a smart thing to do - if you look at it the right way. We came, we saw, we conquered. Bully bully for us. The evil horde has been put down and to the victor go the spoils.
Or, we could try what England has. We could try to just keep the occupied territory until the problem dies down. We can call Iraq our own little Northern Ireland. We can live with the car-bombings, the ingrained hatred in our children. The obsessive and repressive racism that keeps the conquered people "in their place".
We can live with our own version of the IRA, but better funded, better organized and more angry.
We can have police officers in the US carrying automatic high-powered rifles and drive tanks down the streets to protect parade routes, weddings and airports.
We can live with our children dying in schools because they get bombed occasionally by angry people who's families were destroyed by our imperial goals.
It's a choice. It's the choice we'll make in the next election. Who do you want to be?George Bush hears statements like this one from Sheikh Kathim al-Nasseri one of the Shi'ite leaders:
"The result will be very bad for the Americans. If they increase the pressure there will be a crisis between the people of Kerbala and the Americans."
He warned occupation forces that if they do any harm to Shi'ite shrines in the holy cities of Kerbala or Najaf "they will face not only Shi'ites in Iraq but Shi'ites all over the world."
George says "Bring it on."
I say if he wants to have a war with all the Shi'ites, let him have it.
Leave America out of it.That's how the Romans survived for so many years. Ruthless empire building backed by uncontested military might. We could do the same thing. We could almost certainly take most of Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific without too much trouble. We may have to nuke some countries along the way.
But hey, what's the point of having a multi-trillion dollar military budget if you don't spend it?
But that's only one way to think about it.
The other way to think about it is that the US has gotten itself involved in a Jihad with an enemy that has already proved that during occupations it starts killing people in sidewalk cafes and libraries.
And instead of seeing ourselves as Rome, 100BC, we could see ourselves as the US, 2003 with an occupied territory of hostile people who hate our guts and are willing to blow themselves up to prove it. Then we could decide whether we want to deal with this by killing them all - because don't be fooled, we'll have to kill them ALL if we want to be "really secure" - or by making peace.
Which brings me back to the first question - Who do we want to be?
Me, personally. I'd like to find a way NOT to have an occupied territory half-way around the world that is a continual drain on the lives of our children both directly in military and near-military deaths as well as long-term in the bad-faith that the US develops in it's relations with other countries as an overt imperialist power, and the ongoing Jihad that will rage against the United States if we pursue our military and industrial goals to the exclusion of the consideration of human rights and core values like peace.
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: mai
2007-07-22 00:00:00
i want to search this wht do we want to be
moral?
From: Linda
1999-11-30 00:00:00
intentional is the operative word, i
think.
we keep hearing about the "unintended
consequences" or "unforseen consequences."
but we're learning that consequences were
not at all unforseen. and there, not at all
unintended.
most recently, it seems the
state department's -ssessments of post-war iraq
included scenarios very much like the situation we
now are witnessing in iraq.
wolfowitz
said the iraqis' oil would pay for reconstruction,
cheney said americans would be cheered and
welcomed as liberators. but the state department
said the iraqis would not welcome american
occupation and international terrorists would
focus on american occupiers in iraq.
rumsfeld insists more troops aren't
needed in iraq, but hundreds of ammunition depots
are left unguarded due to a lack of personnel and
american soldiers are being attacked and killed
with their own munitions stolen from those self
same unguarded armories.
surely, that
is forseeable. how unintended can it be,
then?
the conclusion must be drawn that
the bush administration is careless about american
lives and american treasure - so long as his life
and his treasure is enhanced.
From: Diane Pgh, PA
1999-11-30 00:00:00
please disregard the calculations in my post
below, they're incorrect i really jumped the gun.
i unfortunately, detracted from the very important
issue that our environmental protection agency
under bush is doing far more harm than good and it
actually seems intentional.
From: Diane Pgh, PA
1999-11-30 00:00:00
there’s such a multitude of foul issues in the
air the average person can barely keep track of
them.
reuter’s friday oct. 17, 2003
“epa won't regulate dioxins in sewage
fertilizer”
excerpts: “…the
environmental protection agency said on friday it
will not regulate dioxins in sewage sludge applied
as fertilizer to u.s. crops because the use of the
sludge does not harm humans or the
environment.…”
the epa itself has
said that the non-cancer risks of dioxins are so
high that it can't even calculate a 'safe' or
acceptable level of exposure. to us that says epa
should keep dioxins out of our food, and that
means, among other things, regulating sewage
sludge," said nancy stoner, director of the
natural resources defense council's clean water
project….
…under these circumstance
[sic}, epa said its analysis showed that only
0.003 new case of cancer per farm family could be
expected each year, or only 0.22 new case per
family over a span of 70 years….”
i
love the epa’s use semantics and cold, seemingly
small percentages, .003 new cases a year equates
to over 750,000 human beings (u.s. population
250,000,000 plus x .003 =750,000) a year for farm
families only, that doesn’t include the figure
for those who don’t live on a
farm.
see:
http://www.reuters.co.u
k/newsarticle.jhtml?type=sciencenews&storyid=36385
39§ion=news
http://www.reuters.co.uk/news
article.jhtml?type=sciencenews&storyid=3638539&sec
tion=news
From: Linda
1999-11-30 00:00:00
well said
Related News
| The Plight of the Common Man | |
| The Gentiles | |
| The New Tip | |
| Cantor's Theorem and Cantor's Paradox - Essential Relations | |
| Pro-Life Democrats - Why the Left Needs Some Moral Superiority |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH